There is a difference between saying that a plausible explanation for the water to wine miracle, if it happened, was Hero's jug; and saying that this character was the first century equivalent of David Copperfield AND the military leader Izas, which is itself a naive conflation based on modern pronounciation of names that originally sounded quite different.

You are correct that the gospels may have historical value, but your interpretation of ancient texts shows the sophistication and scholarship of a child. Your supporting evidence is tenuous at best and non-existant at worst. You cling to this hypothesis with the same level of conviction as an apologist, and a similar level of selection bias.

The gospels are sufficient evidence to say that a Jesus might have existed; but given historical, political, and religious context, and the lack of corroborating evidence, they are insufficient to say that he did exist.

So you come on. If you cannot present a better argument than an apologist then I must treat your claims with the same level of skepticism. And any attempt to portray yourself as above skepticism simply weakens your case.

Quote:We no more have to debunk Jesus' miracles than we are obliged to debunk Harry Potter's magic spells. The only source for Jesus' miracles are Mark and Luke (other gospels drew from them and Matthew is a well known liar). Given that neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, nor would they have known any by that time period, and considering numerous historical inaccuracies and discrepancies, AND considering they may both have been plagiarizing an earlier source whose motives and relation to the events is unknown, AND considering that none of these people believed Jesus was god...

I don't see how any of the gospels can be used as evidence of anything, least of all the veracity of the very Christian doctrine that is based on them.

But this one was "debunked" on this thread, and I made some apologetics remarks in response. I've done something similar many times with the resurrection/Passover Plot/Jesus was a guru who didn't die on the cross, etc. My point is I'm always pleased to see how the text is constructed against those who speak of hoaxes. I don't recall this water/wine challenge before. And here in the text I thought about it for about ten seconds and from memory recalled there were no helping disciple hands, Jesus seated and calling out directions/not touching the wine, etc.

I think everyone is familiar with the 'water to wine' miracle, which is a central Catholic 'proof' that Jesus was divine. But strangely enough, we also know that this famous event was a trick, rather than a miracle. Indeed, we even know who made this trick jug, and we have the original 1st century design too. It was a trick jug made by Hero of Alexandria, the 1st century's Leonardo da Vinci:

And so sucessful was this 'water to wine' trick, in 1st century Near Eastern aristocratic circles, that Hero made about a dozen different designs.

As Hero of Alexandria himself said of this trick:
"We may also pour in the water first, and then, stopping the vent, pour wine upon it, so as to pour out wine for some, wine and water for others, and mere water for those whom we wish to jest with."

Err, so this miracle was a jest, a joke, and the Catholic Church is effectively saying that David Copperfield and David Blaine are divine 'Sons of God', or something like that.

But I find this situation strange. We have known about Hero's trick jugs for centuries, so why has nobody before myself put forward the obvious deduction that Jesus himself was using one of these very same trick jugs? Ok, one can imagine the Catholics keeping it quiet, but what about all those 'honest' historians not tell us about this trick jug, that was used by the aristocracy and royalty of the Near East to entertain their guests? These are the aspects of this milennial deciet that I cannot understand.

So there we have it. It is more than likely that one of the central proofs of Jesus' divinity was based upon a 1st century party trick. However, this does also mean that the gospel records were based in part on real events, because the details are once more confirmed by history. It also implies that this gospel story was based upon royals or aristocrats, rather than pauper artisans - as I have long argued - for only the richest of families could employ David Copperfield or David Blaine to perform at their high-society wedding (at Cana - between Jesus and Mary Magdalene).

And again, I should point out that I am an Atheist searching for the historical truth, and not a believer shoring up a tottering belief system.

Ralph.

.

I guess I'll forever be a skeptic (thank Go... um, somebody) because I'm skeptical even about this. It has certainly occurred to me before that at least some of the "miracles" from Jesus could have been magicians' tricks, but then I find myself wondering why. What was the point of Jesus going to such elaborate measures to try to convince people that he was divine probably knowing that perceived blasphemy could earn him death? Was he hungry for power? Was he trying to change the world to be more moral? Was he simply manipulating people because it was fun and because he could? Countless explanations are possible, but none really strike me as plausible.

What seems far more likely to me in this specific case is that Jesus never existed or maybe somebody existed named Jesus who was nothing like the legend. Either way it seems more likely that the legend formed and eventually someone, who had seen this jug trick performed elsewhere, attributed it to Jesus during the oral tradition as yet another "miracle".

Quote:We no more have to debunk Jesus' miracles than we are obliged to debunk Harry Potter's magic spells. The only source for Jesus' miracles are Mark and Luke (other gospels drew from them and Matthew is a well known liar). Given that neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, nor would they have known any by that time period, and considering numerous historical inaccuracies and discrepancies, AND considering they may both have been plagiarizing an earlier source whose motives and relation to the events is unknown, AND considering that none of these people believed Jesus was god...

I don't see how any of the gospels can be used as evidence of anything, least of all the veracity of the very Christian doctrine that is based on them.

But this one was "debunked" on this thread, and I made some apologetics remarks in response. I've done something similar many times with the resurrection/Passover Plot/Jesus was a guru who didn't die on the cross, etc. My point is I'm always pleased to see how the text is constructed against those who speak of hoaxes. I don't recall this water/wine challenge before. And here in the text I thought about it for about ten seconds and from memory recalled there were no helping disciple hands, Jesus seated and calling out directions/not touching the wine, etc.

LOL. You were not there. You have no idea what he was doing, and neither does anone else, or if he was seated, or how the room was arranged. You are laughable.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

(19-03-2013 08:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote: All here ducked the text itself during this discussion. Shocking.
*It was a large vat of water/wine
*It was filled by the party host's servants who served as independent witnesses of the transformation while Jesus sat at a table not touching the tankard or the water/wine--nor were disciples with Him to do his "sleight-of-hand" for Him
*Dinner guests complimented the host re: the excellent quality of the wine
*There are parallels with water and wine in the New Testament, Jesus being living water, wine representing the joy of life and the blood sacrifice of the Messiah
*There are now just about 100 other miracles of Jesus to "explain away" including His resurrection
Sigh.

I am a magician. It's a hobby, but I'm good enough to be paid sometimes. I have done performances and encountered people later long after the performance who tell me how much they loved it when I did something that I never did. For example, one person said "That was great when you made that ball float in the air! How did you do that?!" Actually, I never made a ball float in the air. I did make a ball float on the edge of a large square cloth, but they "remembered" it floating literally in the air.

Just because story tellers "remember" that it was a large vat or that servants filled it or that Jesus never touched it, doesn't mean it really happened that way. In addition, magicians go to great lengths to convince the audience that things happen a specific way (and not the true way) and that often is why people will "remember" incorrectly later.

Quote:What seems far more likely to me in this specific case is that Jesus never existed or maybe somebody existed named Jesus who was nothing like the legend. Either way it seems more likely that the legend formed and eventually someone, who had seen this jug trick performed elsewhere, attributed it to Jesus during the oral tradition as yet another "miracle".

Quote: LOL. You were not there. You have no idea what he was doing, and neither does anone else, or if he was seated, or how the room was arranged. You are laughable.

Not at all. I’m engaging in challenging a thread that interprets a certain text by referring to what the text is stating/claiming. This thread is like saying Gandalf is a blue wizard when a close reading of Tolkien informs us he is a grey, then white, wizard per the TEXT. When you make uninformed assertions like these, BB, I wonder how you ever passed a college English course, let alone the higher level studies you claim.

Quote:I am a magician. It's a hobby, but I'm good enough to be paid sometimes. I have done performances and encountered people later long after the performance who tell me how much they loved it when I did something that I never did. For example, one person said "That was great when you made that ball float in the air! How did you do that?!" Actually, I never made a ball float in the air. I did make a ball float on the edge of a large square cloth, but they "remembered" it floating literally in the air.

Just because story tellers "remember" that it was a large vat or that servants filled it or that Jesus never touched it, doesn't mean it really happened that way. In addition, magicians go to great lengths to convince the audience that things happen a specific way (and not the true way) and that often is why people will "remember" incorrectly later.

I see completely your point. Reductio ad absurdum--He does a bunch of magic tricks (151 recorded in the gospels) to help demonstrate He fulfills the prophecy requirements of prophetical books written by liars to reprove people to follow a Law that was written by multiple lying sources/redactors--so He may have the great privilege of being rejected by His own people and beaten and nailed to a cross. Special pleading, too, I think.